Background
In January 2022, during the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers represented by the Chicago Teachers Union refused to return to in-person instruction, prompting the Chicago Board of Education to cancel classes for one week. The parties filed unfair labor charges against each other with the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board but later settled in July 2023.
Amy Kessem and Robert Roth, parents of students attending Chicago public schools during the closure, filed a putative class action lawsuit in July 2024 against the CTU, union leaders Jesse Sharkey and Stacy Davis Gates, and the American Federation of Teachers. They alleged the union engaged in an illegal strike under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act and brought claims for negligence, public nuisance, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, breach of contract, and an implied statutory right of action prohibiting strikes. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of standing. The trial court granted the motions.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court properly lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims relating to the alleged unlawful strike and breach of the collective bargaining agreement. The Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act vests exclusive jurisdiction in the IELRB over such disputes, and the circuit court’s role is limited to enforcing IELRB subpoenas, enjoining strikes posing a danger to public health or safety, and enforcing IELRB orders—none of which applied here.
The court also found that the parents lacked statutory standing to pursue their tort claims. Although they attempted to reframe their labor law claims as common law torts, the court rejected this “creative labeling.” Under section 13(b) of the Act, only the employer can initiate an action challenging whether a strike constitutes a clear and present danger. The statute does not create a private right of action for third parties or members of the public. The court additionally upheld dismissal of individual claims against Sharkey and Gates as union agents and dismissal of AFT’s conspiracy claims for lack of underlying tortious conduct. The constitutional challenge to the Act also failed.
Key Takeaways
- Third parties and non-employer residents lack standing under Illinois law to challenge public sector strikes; only the employer has this right under the statute
- Courts will not permit circumvention of administrative labor boards’ exclusive jurisdiction through creative relabeling of statutory labor claims as common law torts
- The statute’s labor scheme does not violate the Illinois Constitution’s remedy provision despite limiting judicial remedies to specific circumstances
- The trial court’s failure to rule on an anti-SLAPP motion within the statutorily required 90-day period is reversible error requiring remand
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the exclusive jurisdiction of administrative labor boards in public sector disputes and prevents creative tort pleading from circumventing those protections. While parents understandably had concerns about school closures affecting their children’s education, Illinois law reserves the authority to challenge public sector strikes to the employer, not residents or taxpayers. The ruling effectively shields unions from harassment lawsuits by non-parties attempting to leverage common law tort theories to reach claims properly belonging in the administrative forum.
More broadly, the decision demonstrates judicial deference to comprehensive statutory administrative schemes. Once a legislature creates an exclusive forum for a category of disputes—here, educational labor relations—courts will rigorously enforce that exclusivity even when individual plaintiffs suffer concrete harm. This reflects a deliberate policy choice to concentrate expertise and authority within specialized administrative bodies rather than permit parallel litigation in general courts.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.